JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS

Vol. 43, No. 4, July–August 2006

Roll-Rate Stability Limits of Unguided Rockets

with Wraparound Fins
G. Liaño∗ and J. Morote∗
National Institute of Aerospace Technology, 28850 Madrid, Spain

The linearized theory of lateral motion of unguided rockets with wraparound fins shows that, unlike planar
configurations, they have different roll-rate stability boundaries depending on the roll direction. An analysis of
the asymmetry-governing parameters is presented. An operational criterion is developed expressing the roll-rate
limits as a function of a factor accounting for the relative effect of the asymmetry terms.

Nomenclature
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.17775

However, WAFs may present roll reversals when transitioning

CD = drag force coefficient through Mach 1, significant side forces and moments at angle of
Cmα = pitching moment coefficient slope attack, and different roll stability derivatives depending on the roll
Cmβ = side moment coefficient slope direction, due to the lack of mirror symmetry. The out-of-plane side
Cmpα = in-plane Magnus moment coefficient moment leads to different roll-rate limits, depending on the sense
Cmpβ = out-of-plane Magnus moment coefficient of rotation. This asymmetry can even lead to roll limits of the same
Cmq , Cm α̇ = damping moment derivatives sign. In such a case the rocket is unstable at zero spin and must be
Cmr , Cm β̇ = cross-coupling damping moment derivatives stabilized with a minimum roll rate in the proper direction.
CNα = normal force coefficient slope This paper presents a linear analysis of the roll-rate limits for
C Nβ = side force coefficient slope asymmetric missiles. For a given WAF configuration, the limit val-
D = reference length, missile diameter ues of an equivalent planar fin missile, together with a defined asym-
g = gravity acceleration metry factor, can be used to obtain the WAF limits.
Ix , I y = axial and transversal moments of inertia
K j0 eiφ j0 = initial value of modal vectors Background
m = mass The pitching and yawing motion of a missile can be described in
p = roll rate terms of the complex angle of attack ξ . The linearized lateral motion
S = reference area, π D 2 /4 t of a symmetric missile in free flight is governed by the following
s = nondimensional arc length, (1/D) t V dt differential equation1 :
0
V = speed of missile
α, β = angles of attack and sideslip ξ  + [H − i P]ξ  − [M + iPT]ξ = P(g D/V 2 ) (1)
λj = damping rates
ξ = complex angle of attack, β + iα where
ρ = density

φj = modal frequencies H = C N∗ α − 2C D∗ − kt−2 (Cmq
∗
+ Cm∗ α̇ )

Subscripts T = C N∗ α − C D∗ + ka−2 Cmpβ

∗
, M = kt−2 Cmα
∗

p = equivalent planar fin configuration 

w = wraparound fin configuration P = (Ix /I y )( p D/V ), kt,a = I y,x /m D 2

Introduction C ∗ = (ρ S D/2m)C

A LMOST every finned projectile is designed to acquire a cer-

tain spin. This rotation is intended to reduce dispersion due to
manufacturing tolerances. In the absence of spin, the lift produced
by the trim angles associated with tolerances will drive the projectile
away from its predicted trajectory. On the other hand, the spin rate
must be kept low enough to avoid Magnus-moment destabilizing
effects. For conventional rockets with planar fins (PF), the mirror
symmetry of the configuration establishes a unique maximum roll
rate, irrespective of the roll direction.
Many rocket systems employ wraparound fins (WAFs), due
to their stowability characteristics for tube-launched ammunition.
Presented as Paper 2005-436 at the AIAA 43rd Aerospace Sciences Meet-
ing, Reno, NV, 10–13 January 2005; received 20 May 2005; revision received
27 September 2005; accepted for publication 12 October 2005. Copyright
c 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal
use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 0022-4650/06 $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
∗ Research Engineer, Aerodynamics Division, Carretera de Ajalvir, KM 4,
Torrejón de Ardoz. Member AIAA.
757
Equation (1) is expressed in a nonrolling axis system, which yaws
and pitches but does not roll with the body (Fig. 1). The independent
variable is the nondimensional arc length s.
In comparison with planar fins, WAFs have more complex aero-
dynamics due to their lack of mirror symmetry. Early work based
on wind-tunnel tests2,3 determined the basic differences between
WAF and PF aerodynamics. The static stability derivatives at zero
angle of attack of WAFs were essentially the same as with equivalent
planar fins. In addition, cross derivatives (out of plane) induced by
the curved fins appeared to be significant for Mach numbers above
2.5. By Maple–Synge analysis, Stevens4,5 showed that WAFs intro-
duced additional stability derivatives, such as Cmβ , Cmr , Cm β̇ , and
Cmpα . He derived the complete differential equation using time as
the independent variable. The side effects of WAFs were also inves-
tigated by means of aeroballistic range testing.6−9 It was concluded
that designers of such configurations should also consider the pos-
sibility of this side moment, because it can have a dramatic effect on
trajectory computations based on conventional aerodynamic coef-
ficients and derivatives. Experimental and computational analyses
with computational fluid dynamics tools were accomplished9−11 to
investigate the origin of these new derivatives.
 758 LIAÑO AND MOROTE
Fig. 1 Nonrolling reference axes.
A complete derivation of the transverse equation of motion utiliz-
ing the nondimensional arc length as the independent variable was
given in Refs. 12 and 13, including the influence of the out-of-plane
side force and moment, the cross-coupling damping moment, and
the in-plane Magnus moment. If these additional terms are consid-
ered, Eq. (1) transforms into the following expression:
ξ  + [H − i(P − I )]ξ  − [(M + PU ) + i(N + P T )]ξ
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.17775
= P(g D/V 2 ) (2)
where the additional WAF coefficients N , I , and U stand for
 
N = kt−2 Cmβ
∗
, ∗
I = C Nβ + kt −2 ∗
Cmr − Cm∗ β̇
∗
U = −C Nβ + ka−2 Cmpα
∗ figurations. Inequality (9) still applies by considering the following
The general solution of Eq. (2) for steady free-flight conditions
is the sum of a constant contribution due to gravity and two modal
waves describing the missile response to initial conditions:
ξ j = K j0 exp(iφ j0 ) exp[(λ j + iφ j )s], j = 1, 2 (3)
The initial amplitude and orientation of the modal waves
(K j0 eiφ j0 ) are functions of the initial conditions. The dynamic sta-
bility requirement is that the damping exponents λ j be nonpositive
throughout the flight of the missile. The damping rates of the motion
can be expressed as
 
1 2(N + P T ) − H (P − I )
λj ≈ − H ∓  ≤0 (4)
2 (P − I )2 − 4(M + PU )
Expanding inequality (4), a quadratic stability condition for the
gyroscopic roll P is obtained:
T (T − H )P 2 + (UH 2 + 2TN − HN + THI)P
+ (MH 2 + N 2 + NHI) ≤ 0 (5)
In the PF case (N , I, U are zero) this equation yields to symmetric
roll-rate limits (P1 = −P2 ). For WAF configurations the endpoints
P1 and P2 are no longer symmetric, because of the linear term.
In fact, the side moment can produce a complete change of the dy-
namic stability picture at supersonic speeds, with P1 and P2 having
the same sign.12 The consequence is that, unlike PFs, WAFs can
be unstable even at zero roll rate. If this occurs, the rocket must be
stabilized with roll in the proper direction.
Stability Plot for Wraparound Fins
A dynamic stability criterion for a symmetric missile is described
in Ref. 1, using the gyroscopic factor sg , and introducing a dynamic
stability factor sd that allows a certain level of damping (λ ≥ 0). The
rocket can fly through instability zones where one of the damping
rates is positive (λ j ≤ λ), provided that the growth of the angle of
attack is tolerable:
r = 1/sg = 4M/P 2 (6)
sd = 2(T + λ)/(H + 2λ) (7)
Fig. 2 Stability plot for PFs and WAFs.
For convenience r will be used instead of 1/sg . Inequality (4)
for planar fins (N = I = U = 0) is then equivalent to the following
expressions:
H + 2λ ≥ 0 (8)
r ≤ sd (2 − sd ) (9)
Inequality (9) defines a parabola in the stability plot (Fig. 2). A
rocket below the parabola is dynamically stable, whereas above the
parabola it is unstable. The gyroscopic and the generalized dynamic
stability factors of Eqs. (6) and (7) can be extended to WAF con-
expressions:
4(M + PU ) 4M
r= ≈ (10)
(P − I ) 2 (P − I )2
2{(T + N /P)[P/(P − I )] + λ}
sd = (11)
H + 2λ
For a finned missile P is on the order of 10−4 . Hence PU can
be neglected in comparison with M. In terms of dynamic stability,
the WAF lack of mirror symmetry affects both the gyroscopic and
the dynamic stability factors. Except for nonspinning applications,
the term I can be neglected in comparison with the gyroscopic
roll P. In contrast, the influence of the side moment term N may
be dominant if P is small. Expressions (9–11) show that the side
moment can destabilize the rocket if it has sufficient magnitude,
compared to other aerodynamic coefficients.
In the PF case, a change in roll rate determines a shift along a
vertical line in Fig. 2. For missiles equipped with WAFs this is no
longer true, because of the explicit dependence in Eq. (11) of sd on
P. To obtain the curve in which a given WAF configuration moves
as P changes, we can eliminate P from Eqs. (10) and (11):
r = −[(sd − sdp )/A]2 (12)
where
N +TI
A= √ (13)
(H + 2λ) −M
2(T + λ)
sdp = (14)
H + 2λ
Equation (12) defines a new parabola in Fig. 2 with a maximum
(r = 0, sd = sdp ) when p → ∞. Each branch of the WAF parabola
corresponds to a roll-rate direction. The left branch corresponds to
negative values of P, if N is positive. In this case, the right branch is
related to positive values of P. The two points of intersection with
the neutral stability parabola defined by Eq. (9) yield the gyroscopic
roll limits, at which the rocket acquires neutral stability. The WAF
parabola degenerates into a vertical line when A is 0 (planar fins).
In this case there is only one roll-rate limit, disregarding the roll
rotational direction. The presence of a side moment changes this
situation, leading to asymmetric roll-rate limits. At the vertex the
influence of the side moment becomes zero, and sd equals sdp .
 LIAÑO AND MOROTE 759

Fig. 3 WAF and neutral stability parabolas.

Equation (14) is the same as Eq. (7); thus sdp is the dynamic sta-
bility factor of the equivalent planar fin configuration, which has
the same longitudinal characteristics (M, H, T ) as the WAF config-
uration, but all the asymmetry terms (N , I, U ) zero. The value r p
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.17775

in Fig. 2 determines the roll rate at which the planar fin configura-
tion becomes unstable, so it is related to sdp through the expression Fig. 4 Gyroscopic roll limits
r p = sdp (2 − sd p ). According to Ref. 3, a planar fin missile with the vs factor A (Sdp < 0).
same planform area produces the same lift and pitching moment,
but a slightly lower drag, due to the difference in frontal area. Be-
cause the drag coefficient makes a minor contribution to H and T ,
this seems to be a good approximation to the equivalent planar fin
configuration. However, the curved fins might produce a significant
change of the Magnus moment coefficient, thus altering T . In this
respect, much work has been done dealing with Magnus effects on
finned missiles,14−19 but the contribution due to curved fins needs Pp is the gyroscopic roll for the equivalent PF configuration to
further research. It is well known that WAFs have roll-direction- achieve neutral stability. Because the limits are odd functions of A,
dependent damping stability derivatives Clp± . They can also be ex- there is a discontinuity when A = 0. When A → ∞, the limits tend
pected to have roll-direction-dependent Magnus-moment stability to the asymptotes P = m j A,
derivatives Cmβp± (Ref. 13). They would be amenable to the present m 2 = m Pp , m 1 = (1/m)Pp (18)
treatment by considering two semiparabolas with different vertices.
The size of the parabola (A) is the driving parameter that deter- where
mines the level of asymmetry of the roll-rate limits. Depending on 
its value, there are three different situations for the roll-rate stabil- m = + 1 − 2/sdp , if sdp < 0
ity limits (Fig. 3). For values of A below the unity, the points of 
intersection lie on different branches of the WAF parabola, and the m = − 1 − 2/sdp , if sdp > 2
roll-rate limits have different signs, as in the planar fin case. A criti-
cal value occurs when A equals 1. Then the parabolas have the same Negative values of A, that is, side moments in the opposite direc-
size and intersect at a unique point. The second point of intersection tion, change the rotational directions of the limits. The case sdp > 2 is
tends to infinity; that is, one roll-rate limit becomes zero. When A similar, the slope of the asymptotes being negative. Within the inter-
is greater than 1, the points of intersection lie on the same branch of val 0 < sdp < 2, Eq. (16) can produce imaginary solutions. However,
the parabola, so the roll-rate limits have equal signs. An analytical real rockets are found1 to lie outside this interval. A description of
derivation of the points of intersection is included in the Appendix. this case can be found in the Appendix.
Therefore the parameter A determines how the additional aerody- The gyroscopic roll can be scaled with Pp , yielding
namic derivatives make the rocket depart from the symmetric situ-
    
ation. If the product TI can be neglected, and assuming no damping
Bwj = (Pwj − I )/Pp = A −r p 1−sdp ∓ 1 − r p A2 (19)
level (λ), Eq. (13) yields
√ In terms of this new parameter, the PF limit (A → 0) and the
A = N /H −M (15)
asymptotes (A → ∞) take the simpler values
Note that the preceding discussion is valid irrespective of the sign Bwj = ±1 (20)
of A, because it appears squared in Eq. (12). In the next section, the
roll-rate limits are found as a function of this parameter, and then m 2 = 1/m 1 = m (21)
the influence of its sign will be considered.
For practical purposes the mathematical discontinuities in Fig. 4
Roll-Rate Limits do not have any effects, and Eq. (19) provides a roll-rate band where
The limits of the gyroscopic roll P can be expressed as functions the rocket is stable, as shown in Fig. 5, which depicts the stability
of A combining Eqs. (11), (13), and (14) and Eqs. (A4) and (A5) in boundaries for sdp < 0.
the Appendix: For a given Mach number and spin, a rocket is dynamically sta-
 √    
ble if it lies within the stability band. If the spin varies, while the
Mach number is kept constant, the rocket moves along a vertical
Pwj − I = A −4M −r p 1 − sdp ∓ 1 − r p A2 (16)
line (Fig. 5) until it becomes unstable when it reaches Bw1 or Bw2 .
If the Mach number varies, A and B vary too. Unfortunately, the
The subscript j takes the value 1 or 2. The curves defined by borderlines also change, because r p depends on the aerodynamic
Eq. (16) are depicted in Fig. 4 for the case sdp < 0. When A → 0, coefficients through the expression
the limits approach the following values:
 4(T + λ)(H − T + λ)
Pwj − I = ∓ 4M/r p = ∓Pp (17) rp = (22)
(H + 2λ)2
 760 LIAÑO AND MOROTE

The characterization of the equivalent planar fin configuration is

a matter of research, since WAF configurations can be expected to
have roll-direction-dependent Magnus-moment stability derivatives
Cmβp± , which are amenable to the present treatment by considering
two semiparabolas with different vertices.
Fig. 5 Scaled roll stability
boundaries (Sdp < 0). Appendix: Stability Factors vs A
The roll rates for which a certain rocket acquires neutral stability
correspond to those points in Fig. 3 where the WAF parabola inter-
sects with the neutral stability parabola. The analytical expression
can be obtained by eliminating r = 1/sg from Eqs. (9) and (12):

sdw (2 − sdw ) = −(1/A2 )(sdw − sdp )2 (A1)

For most cases sd p is far from the interval (0, 2); thus r p  −1
and, provided A is in the zone of interest (|A| not much greater After a few derivations, the dynamic stability factor of the inter-
than 1), Eq. (19) transforms into section points can be found:

 
Bwj = A ± 1, if sdp < 0 sdwj − sdp = [A2 /(A2 − 1)] 1 − sdp ± 1 − sdp (2 − sdp ) A2
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.17775

Bwj = −A ± 1, if sdp > 2 (23) (A2)

Leaving aside those cases where the Magnus moment is small,
and hence sd p is near the interval (0, 2), the borderlines are well
represented by straight lines that do not depend on the flight condi-
tion. The rocket position in the diagram can be plotted throughout
the trajectory and checked with fixed stability limits as long as the
requirement sd p < 0 or sdp > 2 is maintained throughout the flight.
For a given value of A, calculated from Eq. (13) or (15), the curves
of Eq. (19) or the straight lines of Eq. (23) determine two limit values
Bwj , and the corresponding roll-rate limits can be obtained from
  from which follows
pwj = (I y V /Ix D) I + Bwj (H + 2λ) M/(T + λ)(H − T + λ)
(24)
The subscript j can take the values 1 (plus sign) or 2 (minus sign).
Real rockets are found to lie outside the interval 0 < sdp < 2, the
radicand is always positive, and Eq. (A2) yields two real solutions.
This expression can be written as a function of r p , taking into account
that r p and sdp lie in the neutral stability parabola, and so they are
related through the following expression:
r p = sdp (2 − sdp ) (A3)

1 − sdp = ± 1 − r p (A4)

or Equation (A2) can now be rewritten as

 
pwj = (I y V /Ix D) I + Bwj H M/T (H − T ) (25)   
sdwj − sdp = [A2 /(A2 − 1)] 1 − sdp ± 1 − r p A2 (A5)
if the level of damping λ is taken to be zero. If the small term I is
not considered in the analysis, the procedure simplifies even further. or
In this case, the variable B is the ratio of WAF to PF gyroscopic roll
   
limits (Pw /Pp ), but it is also this ratio in terms of the dimensional sdwj − sdp = [A2 /(A2 − 1)] − 1 − r p ± 1 − r p A2
roll rate ( pw / p p ). If the straight lines of Eq. (23) are to be used, the
roll-rate stability limits are readily seen to be (if sdp ≥ 1)
pwj = (A ± 1) p p , if sdp < 0    
sdwj − sdp = [A2 /(A2 − 1)] + 1 − r p ± 1 − r p A2
pwj = −(A ± 1) p p , if sdp > 2 (26)
(if sdp ≤ 1) (A6)
where p p is the roll-rate stability limit of the equivalent planar fin
configuration. Equation (26) provides a simple relation between PF
and WAF limits. Assuming that the equivalent planar fin behavior The gyroscopic factor of the intersection points can be obtained
is known, only the asymmetry factor A of the actual configuration combining Eqs. (12) and (A6):
need be calculated to find the stability limits.
2
Conclusions
This paper presents an analysis of the roll-rate limits for dynamic
stability of missiles equipped with wraparound fins. The gyroscopic
and dynamic stability factors were extended to WAF configurations
so that the dynamic stability criterion based on stability plots could
be used. In contrast with the PF case, WAF configurations move
along parabolas as the roll rate varies, due to the presence of a side
moment, leading to asymmetric roll-rate limits. The size of the WAF
parabola is the parameter that determines the level of asymmetry of
the stability roll-rate limits.
Expressing the limits as a function of this asymmetry factor fa-
cilitates a design tool for roll-rate tailoring along the trajectory. In
many cases the limits are well represented by straight lines, which
are independent of the flight condition. The stability roll-rate limits
of a given WAF configuration are readily obtained from the behav-
ior of the equivalent planar fin configuration by the use of a single
parameter.
    
rwj = − [A/(A2 − 1)] − 1 − r p ± 1 − r p A2 (A7)
This expression is valid for every sdp value; the minus sign is re-
lated to j = 1, when sdp ≤ 1. The dynamic and gyroscopic factors are
depicted in Fig. A1. When A < 1, the second root in the parentheses
is greater than the first one, and the two solutions of Eq. (A6) have
different signs, corresponding to different branches of the parabola,
and hence to different roll rotational directions. When A > 1, the
first root dominates, and the limits correspond to the same direction
of roll rotational speed. In the critical case of A = 1, one of the so-
lutions becomes infinite (P → 0 ⇒ sdw1 → ∞ and rw1 → − ∞) and
the other takes the following finite values:
 
sdw2 = −sdp
2
2(1 − sdp ), rw2 = −r p2 4(1 − r p ) (A8)
Even though real rockets lie outside the interval 0 < sdp < 2, it is
theoretically possible for a rocket to lie within the interval. In such
 LIAÑO AND MOROTE 761

Fig. A1 Dynamic and gyroscopic factors for neutral stability as a function of A.

References
1 Murphy, C. H., “Free Flight Motion of Symmetric Missiles,” Ballistic
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.17775

Research Lab., Rept. 1216, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 1963.
2 Dahlke, C. W., and Craft, J. C., “The Effect of Wrap-Around Fins on
Aerodynamic Stability and Rolling Moment Variations,” U.S. Army Missile
Research, Development and Engineering Lab., RD-73-17, Redstone Arsenal,
AL, July 1973.
3 Dahlke, C. W., “The Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wrap-Around Fins
at Mach Numbers of 0.3 to 3.0,” U.S. Army Missile Research, Development
and Engineering Lab., RD-77-4, Redstone Arsenal, AL, Oct. 1976.
4 Stevens, F. L., “Analysis of the Linear Pitching and Yawing Motion
of Curved-Finned Missiles,” U.S. Naval Weapons Lab., NWL TR-2989,
Dahlgren, VA, Oct. 1973.
5 Stevens, F. L., On, T. J., and Clare, T. A., “Wrap-Around vs. Cruciform
a) Stability plot Fins: Effects on Rocket Flight Performance,” AIAA Paper 74-777, Aug.
1974.
6 Winchenbach, G. L., Buff, R. S., Whyte, R. H., and Hathaway, W. H.,
“Subsonic and Transonic Aerodynamics of a Wraparound Fin Configura-
tion,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1986,
pp. 627–632; also AIAA Paper 85-0106, Jan. 1985.
7 Vitale, R. E., Abate, G. L., Winchenbach, G. L., and Riner, W., “Aero-
dynamic Test and Analysis of a Missile Configuration with Curved Fins,”
AIAA Paper 92-4495, Aug. 1992.
8 Abate, G., and Hathaway, W., “Aerodynamic Test and Analysis of Wrap
Around Fins with Base Cavities,” AIAA Paper 94-0051, Jan. 1994.
9 Berner, C., Abate, G. L., and Dupuis, A., “Aerodynamics of Wrap Around
Fins Using Experimental and Computational Techniques,” Missile Aerody-
namics, RTO MP-5, Paper 7, May 1998.
10 Tilmann, C. P., Huffman, R. E., Buter, T. A., and Bowersox, R. D. W.,

b) Roll boundaries “Experimental Investigation of the Flow Structure near a Single Wraparound
Fin,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 34, No. 6, 1997, pp. 729–736.
Fig. A2 Dynamic stability for 0 < sdp < 2. 11 McIntyre, T. C., Bowersox, R. D. W., and Goss, L. P., “Effects of Mach
Number on Supersonic Wraparound Fin Aerodynamics,” Journal of Space-
craft and Rockets, Vol. 35, No. 6, 1998, pp. 742–748.
a case, the concept of roll limit for the equivalent planar fin config- 12 Tanrikulu, Ö., Önen, C., Mahmutyazicioğlu, G., and Bektaş, İ., “Linear
uration does not make sense, because it is always stable. However, Stability Analysis of Unguided Missiles with Wrap-Around Tail Fins in Free
the gyroscopic roll can be scaled in a similar way: Flight,” Subsystem Integration for Tactical Missiles (SITM) and Design and
Operation of Unmanned Air Vehicles (DOUAV), AGARD CP-591, Paper 5,
 Oct. 1995.
Pp = −4M/r p (A9) 13 Tanrikulu, Ö., and Mahmutyazicioğlu, G., “Magnus Effects on Stability
of Wraparound-Finned Missiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 35,
The physical meaning of Pp can be seen in Fig. A2, and it is No. 4, 1998, pp. 467–472.
related to the statically unstable configuration having the same sdp 14 Benton, E. R., “Supersonic Magnus Effects on a Finned Missile,” AIAA
value. An expression similar to Eq. (19) applies now: Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1964, pp. 153–155.
15 Platou, A. S., “Magnus Characteristics of Finned and Non-Finned Mis-
 √    siles,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1965, pp. 83–90.
Bwj = (Pwj − I )/Pp = − A r p 1 − sdp ∓ 1 − r p A2 16 Vaughn, H. R., and Reis, G. E., “A Magnus Theory,” AIAA Journal,
Vol. 11, No. 10, 1973, pp. 1396–1403; also AIAA Paper 73-124, Jan. 1973.
(A10) 17 Uselton, J. C., and Carman, J. B., “A Study of the Magnus Effects on a
Sounding Rocket at Supersonic Speeds,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
The slopes of the asymptotes (A → ∞) have different signs: Vol. 8, No. 1, 1971, pp. 28–34; also AIAA Paper 70-207, Jan. 1970.
18 Seginer, A., and Rosenwasser, I., “Magnus Effects on Spinning Tran-
 sonic Finned Missiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 23, No. 1,
m 2 = −1/m 1 = − 2/sdp − 1 (A11) 1986, pp. 31–38; also AIAA Paper 83-2146, Aug. 1983.
19 Pechier, M., Guillen, P., and Cayzac, R., “Magnus Effect over Finned
√
The stability limits are plotted in Fig. A2b. When |A| < r p , the Projectiles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2001,
two solutions from Eq. (A10) are imaginary, and the rocket is stable pp. 542–549.
√
for every roll rate. When |A| > r p , there is a roll-rate band where
the rocket is unstable. When |A| > 1, the rocket is unstable at p = 0 M. Miller
and could be stabilized by roll in any direction. Associate Editor